I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
so you'd want your own (admittedly perverted) sense of justice even though this robbery already happened? even though "it can't be undone"? isn't that looking backwards?
I'm sure someone else made this point already but after seeing these two quotes together...
What's most fun about conservative attacks on Obama's superior politicking is the number of them throwing around the term "Chicago politics" that didn't even know the phrase existed before someone told them it can be used as a pejorative. Someone also forgot to tell them that no one gives a shit about "Chicago politics". The term is about as dead as "socialist" in terms of portraying someone negatively.
I love it. It's like the most retarded game of Innuendo ever.
Conservative Pundit: Obama's looking pretty unsteady, you know? Kind of "Wobbly", if you know what I mean...
Human Being: :blank stare:
Conservative Pundit: I mean, he's not too steady on his pins. Maybe he's got a case of the "Trotskys," eh, comrade?
Human Being:
Conservative Pundit: I'm just saying all the stress is making him lose his hair. Maybe he should get a "Whig", eh? Eh? Get it?
They call their rules "commandments." As if to say, "These are sacred!"
Good lord... There are no words for the retarded level of slant on that site. There are no words.
Well, to be fair, I think some of the people on there are trolls. The beauty of it is that no one knows who is a troll and who is legit. It's Poe's Law in action.
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I used to be part of a community that would try to one-up each other for the most ludicrously xenophobic, stereotypically right-winger edits we could put in a conservapedia page
The worst days would be when someone would link something and go "Hahahahaha who edited this in" and none of us would know
And then we'd realize "Oh shit someone actually believes this"
Most days were awesome though
Good times...good times
Unfortunately they've pretty much locked out every page of note by now and now you need to have like a history and shit to edit most popular pages, it's really not fun any more, especially when even our most ludicrous shit is fairly tame by Conservapedia's standards now
I meant to go to conservipedia but typed conservipenis.com in the address bar.
Oops.
Richard_Dastardly on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I'm sorry guys, but this was on the front page and I just had to make sure you guys saw it.
"Cheerleaders for the Revolution: Network Coverage of Obama's First 100 Days": The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama's first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters' ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public. The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama's drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs. Network reporters never used the word “liberal” to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days. [14]
I'm sorry guys, but this was on the front page and I just had to make sure you guys saw it.
"Cheerleaders for the Revolution: Network Coverage of Obama's First 100 Days": The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama's first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters' ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public. The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama's drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs. Network reporters never used the word “liberal†to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days. [14]
Hey, I actually agree with part of that. The problem is I think it started a while before this president, and nobody on the right had a problem with it when they all went banging on war drums for the administration. But that's off topic for this thread.
On topic: I don't know if this was covered earlier, but this shit doesn't help them. Steele:
"Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life," Steele told a caller. "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitt because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about."
The party leaders (even if nobody likes Steele), are actively and publicly sniping at each other, and damaging their eventual next attempts at seats. More horrifically, they're sniping at the ones who aren't completely fucking nuts. Romney's a lot of things, but he's not the guy you should be trying to take down. Bachmann should be in your sights if you want to prove you aren't appealing to the crazy.
I'm sorry guys, but this was on the front page and I just had to make sure you guys saw it.
"Cheerleaders for the Revolution: Network Coverage of Obama's First 100 Days": The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama's first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters' ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public. The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama's drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs. Network reporters never used the word “liberal†to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days. [14]
Oh yeah, there's that nefarious liberal media bias.
You know, I'm eating this shit up with a big grin. Anything that riles conservatives is bound to be something I approve of. I want to watch as they wallow in their angst and self-righteousness and vitriol. Oh, and impotence, can't forget that.
Unfortunately, I agree that Obama (using him to stand in for the current administration en total) should not pursue prosecuting torture crimes against the Bush administration. Political expediency is the reason not to, and it is a very good reason. Look at the country now. If prosecution is brought against members of the previous administration for torture crimes, the government will shut down because _all_ attention is going to be focused on this. Outside of real emergencies, nothing is going to get done in government, and imagine the divisive friction it will cause across the country.
Fuck political expediency. It's not an excuse for not doing the right thing.
Actually it can be. I really want to see that 'aw shucks, I know I was a good president' shit-eating grin wiped of GW's face within his lifetime, but prosecuting members of the previous administration would bring the government to a grinding halt for the years, because all focus, and all political capital would be concentrated on this. Right now, there's just too much important shit going on for pursuing something that long and distracting to be allowable. Also, what if the prosecution fails? All that time, effort, and ignoring everything else going on in the country for nothing. I think the choice is pretty clear. The current administration could spend it's entire term focused on that one issue, or they could actually work on getting the country turned around. Based on Obama's first hundred days, it's obvious which he decided to do.
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
There are always going to be important issues on the table to take care of. Under that premise, there isnt a viable scenario for prosecution of a previous administration's crimes to ever happen. Having your distant successors apologize for you postmortem is not accountability. There has to be a way to do this.
I think a bit of an over-exaggeration. Why would any branch other than the Justice Dept be fully involved in a criminal trial?
Richard_Dastardly on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
Wasn't it earlier in the thread that someone posted the percentage of people who agreed that the torturing was all right, and it was distressingly close to 40%? Prosecution would be such a big issue that in order to do competently would require all of the current administration's attention, it certainly would still be on-going four years from now, and can you imagine just how much of the campaign attention would be focused soley on the issues that have arisen from this?
I'm sorry guys, but this was on the front page and I just had to make sure you guys saw it.
"Cheerleaders for the Revolution: Network Coverage of Obama's First 100 Days": The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama's first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters' ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public. The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama's drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs. Network reporters never used the word “liberal†to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days. [14]
Oh yeah, there's that nefarious liberal media bias.
You know, I'm eating this shit up with a big grin. Anything that riles conservatives is bound to be something I approve of. I want to watch as they wallow in their angst and self-righteousness and vitriol. Oh, and impotence, can't forget that.
Yeah, its rather amazing to listen to bang on about the 'liberal media'. The media, as a whole, is less partisan than it is about gauging the popular sentiment and playing to that. New Presidents are generally popular right after they are elected, so the press runs with that. Bush wasn't getting savaged in the media right after he was elected, it wasn't until popular opinion started to turn against his administration that the tone changed, which is pretty funny considering how hostile 43's administration could be towards the press.
I find the harping on the fact that the word 'liberal' isn't being used enough rather telling as well. I suppose when you've been doing your damnedest to try to turn the word 'liberal' into some sort of epithet it rather grates when no one will use it to describe someone you don't like. Never mind that is a term that is highly subjective, and that reporters telling us that a Presidents agenda is 'liberal' or 'conservative' doesn't actually tell us jack squat.
It comes down to economics. Not too long ago I heard a old news hound on the radio, I forget the reporter but I believe it was a Press Club Luncheon which suggests someone of some experience, basically saying 'Real journalism isn't economically feasible anymore, its expensive and the returns just don't make it worth it.' Its not hard to see the truth in this, most of the real in-depth journalism I see being done these days ends up not in newspapers, but in books or news magazines. The medium that birthed much of journalism in this country is dying, because it can't compete with 24 hour news channels brimming with talking heads paid not to inform but to simply ejaculate whatever drivel will sell.
Phant on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
I think a bit of an over-exaggeration. Why would any branch other than the Justice Dept be fully involved in a criminal trial?
Because it's going to be hugely politicized, and it's not something that can afford to be half-assed. The justice department would be the part involved once indictments are handed down, and getting those would require immense investments of time and political capital to get done. There would be the investigations and attempts to compile appropriate evidence to support the indictments, and the legal maneuvering and attempts to thwart said compilation. On the upside, the amount being paid in hourly fees to the however many lawyers involved might be enough to singlehandedly end this recession.
So would appointing a special prosecutor make much of a difference in terms of political capital and necessary white house attention? Wouldn't his independence help to isolate the white house and it's political capital?
It comes down to economics. Not too long ago I heard a old news hound on the radio, I forget the reporter but I believe it was a Press Club Luncheon which suggests someone of some experience, basically saying 'Real journalism isn't economically feasible anymore, its expensive and the returns just don't make it worth it.' Its not hard to see the truth in this, most of the real in-depth journalism I see being done these days ends up not in newspapers, but in books or news magazines. The medium that birthed much of journalism in this country is dying, because it can't compete with 24 hour news channels brimming with talking heads paid not to inform but to simply ejaculate whatever drivel will sell.
As I understand it, television journalism only became an economic animal recently. The networks operated their news shows at a loss as a public service (or if you're more cynical, for the good PR you get for providing a service). I've only ever heard of one person who made their fortune solely off of selling the news, Murdoch, and I think even he would agree that a lot of his profit was derived from tabloids. My point is, I don't think news has to be highly profitable to survive, because it wasn't in the past.
lazegamer on
I would download a car.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It comes down to economics. Not too long ago I heard a old news hound on the radio, I forget the reporter but I believe it was a Press Club Luncheon which suggests someone of some experience, basically saying 'Real journalism isn't economically feasible anymore, its expensive and the returns just don't make it worth it.' Its not hard to see the truth in this, most of the real in-depth journalism I see being done these days ends up not in newspapers, but in books or news magazines. The medium that birthed much of journalism in this country is dying, because it can't compete with 24 hour news channels brimming with talking heads paid not to inform but to simply ejaculate whatever drivel will sell.
As I understand it, television journalism only became an economic animal recently. The networks operated their news shows at a loss as a public service (or if you're more cynical, for the good PR you get for providing a service). I've only ever heard of one person who made their fortune solely off of selling the news, Murdoch, and I think even he would agree that a lot of his profit was derived from tabloids. My point is, I don't think news has to be highly profitable to survive, because it wasn't in the past.
If by recently you mean somewhat over a decade ago, then yes, that's probably true.
It comes down to economics. Not too long ago I heard a old news hound on the radio, I forget the reporter but I believe it was a Press Club Luncheon which suggests someone of some experience, basically saying 'Real journalism isn't economically feasible anymore, its expensive and the returns just don't make it worth it.' Its not hard to see the truth in this, most of the real in-depth journalism I see being done these days ends up not in newspapers, but in books or news magazines. The medium that birthed much of journalism in this country is dying, because it can't compete with 24 hour news channels brimming with talking heads paid not to inform but to simply ejaculate whatever drivel will sell.
As I understand it, television journalism only became an economic animal recently. The networks operated their news shows at a loss as a public service (or if you're more cynical, for the good PR you get for providing a service). I've only ever heard of one person who made their fortune solely off of selling the news, Murdoch, and I think even he would agree that a lot of his profit was derived from tabloids. My point is, I don't think news has to be highly profitable to survive, because it wasn't in the past.
If by recently you mean somewhat over a decade ago, then yes, that's probably true.
As I understand it, profits started to rise sharply somewhere in the early 80's. Likely coinciding the the rise of cable news.
So would appointing a special prosecutor make much of a difference in terms of political capital and necessary white house attention? Wouldn't his independence help to isolate the white house and it's political capital?
There was a prosecutor on Olbermann a while back who actually advised against this. Idea was once you name a special prosecutor everyone shuts the fuck up. Cheney wouldn't be talking to the Sunday circuit about how awesome waterboarding is; he would be quietly talking to his lawyers. Much of the information related to the case goes private and you quickly lose the public will to push the case forward.
Is that it then? We are stuck with the President always being above the law because prosecuting one is too much trouble?
We already have Cheney confessing to war crimes on national television, theres not even a question of guilt.
Dude! Any President could walk outside the White House and strangle a random tourist to death with a hundred witnesses recording the event with cameras. That President would never spend a day in jail - that's a perk of being the leader of the free world.
emnmnme on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Is that it then? We are stuck with the President always being above the law because prosecuting one is too much trouble?
We already have Cheney confessing to war crimes on national television, theres not even a question of guilt.
Absolutely not. But it would probably prudent to wait until the worst of the economic crisis is over to go forward with it.
Yeah, I'd hope the statute of limitations on "crimes against humanity" was more than a couple of years.
Well apparently its not a couple of months since no one is even willing to investigate now. In a year it'll be election season again and it won't be appropriate because it'll be simply part of the campaign process. After that it will be the run up to the Presidential election and that will be even more true. All the while, we will be still recovering from this same economic crisis which will not be going away in the next year and not completely for several. After that there will be another crisis the WH has to deal with because that's what they do. If you put it off until the government doesn't have a lot on its plate then it will never happen.
I'm a little unclear at what point a prosecution of a President who committed war crimes could occur? In the aftermath of prosperity associated with those war crimes? Honestly if a President severely violated the law and/or committed war crimes, and it led to peace and prosperity he isn't getting prosecuted. The will of the people wouldn't allow it. If a President severely violated the law and it led to major problems now we aren't allowed to prosecute? When exactly does that leave for prosecutions?
The rule of law overrules political expediency. Political infighting is the only reason the two would have anything to with each other, its not like prosecutors would otherwise be crafting economic policy. By saying we should put this off, one is basically saying Justice should be cast aside for political advantage.
I'm sorry guys, but this was on the front page and I just had to make sure you guys saw it.
"Cheerleaders for the Revolution: Network Coverage of Obama's First 100 Days": The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama's first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters' ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public. The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama's drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs. Network reporters never used the word “liberal†to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days. [14]
Oh yeah, there's that nefarious liberal media bias.
You know, I'm eating this shit up with a big grin. Anything that riles conservatives is bound to be something I approve of. I want to watch as they wallow in their angst and self-righteousness and vitriol. Oh, and impotence, can't forget that.
I think the problem the republicans have is that they can't tell bias from actual positive press. If the president is doing the best job he could possibly be doing under the circumstances (which President Obama is) then not bashing him isn't bias, its reporting the facts! Just like when Bush was an awful president and did everything in his power to destroy this nation, bashing him wasn't evidence of bias, it was reporting the facts. Perhaps I exaggerate a little here, but that's what the results were.
Fox news said bush was awesome and the savior of a nation cruelly ravaged by the Evil President Clinton, and that President Obama is a despicable communist socialist nazi despot who will destroy us all. They are biased if you want bias. The other news networks have been perhaps a bit over positive, but even CNN devotes an hour every day to 'Lou Dobbs rants on and on about how Obama is the doom of this nation'
And is liberal even a bad word? I would self identify as a liberal on most issues, and so would most people I know. Heck even a lot of Republicans would say they were liberal on many issues.
Posts
so you'd want your own (admittedly perverted) sense of justice even though this robbery already happened? even though "it can't be undone"? isn't that looking backwards?
I'm sure someone else made this point already but after seeing these two quotes together...
I love it. It's like the most retarded game of Innuendo ever.
Conservative Pundit: Obama's looking pretty unsteady, you know? Kind of "Wobbly", if you know what I mean...
Human Being: :blank stare:
Conservative Pundit: I mean, he's not too steady on his pins. Maybe he's got a case of the "Trotskys," eh, comrade?
Human Being:
Conservative Pundit: I'm just saying all the stress is making him lose his hair. Maybe he should get a "Whig", eh? Eh? Get it?
I'm fairly convinced that if Rush started making overtly racist remarks it would do nothing but make his listeners love him even more.
But the GOP have only a 5% market share anyway
Ahohohohohoho
Good lord... There are no words for the retarded level of slant on that site. There are no words.
Half of those people who are registered are trolling
Once I deleted the entire Iraq page and replaced it with the words "Mostly harmless"
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Well, to be fair, I think some of the people on there are trolls. The beauty of it is that no one knows who is a troll and who is legit. It's Poe's Law in action.
The worst days would be when someone would link something and go "Hahahahaha who edited this in" and none of us would know
And then we'd realize "Oh shit someone actually believes this"
Most days were awesome though
Good times...good times
Unfortunately they've pretty much locked out every page of note by now and now you need to have like a history and shit to edit most popular pages, it's really not fun any more, especially when even our most ludicrous shit is fairly tame by Conservapedia's standards now
Oops.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Ignorance is bliss, after all. I'm sure you'd be very happy.
Hey, I actually agree with part of that. The problem is I think it started a while before this president, and nobody on the right had a problem with it when they all went banging on war drums for the administration. But that's off topic for this thread.
On topic: I don't know if this was covered earlier, but this shit doesn't help them. Steele:
The party leaders (even if nobody likes Steele), are actively and publicly sniping at each other, and damaging their eventual next attempts at seats. More horrifically, they're sniping at the ones who aren't completely fucking nuts. Romney's a lot of things, but he's not the guy you should be trying to take down. Bachmann should be in your sights if you want to prove you aren't appealing to the crazy.
Oh yeah, there's that nefarious liberal media bias.
You know, I'm eating this shit up with a big grin. Anything that riles conservatives is bound to be something I approve of. I want to watch as they wallow in their angst and self-righteousness and vitriol. Oh, and impotence, can't forget that.
Yeah, its rather amazing to listen to bang on about the 'liberal media'. The media, as a whole, is less partisan than it is about gauging the popular sentiment and playing to that. New Presidents are generally popular right after they are elected, so the press runs with that. Bush wasn't getting savaged in the media right after he was elected, it wasn't until popular opinion started to turn against his administration that the tone changed, which is pretty funny considering how hostile 43's administration could be towards the press.
I find the harping on the fact that the word 'liberal' isn't being used enough rather telling as well. I suppose when you've been doing your damnedest to try to turn the word 'liberal' into some sort of epithet it rather grates when no one will use it to describe someone you don't like. Never mind that is a term that is highly subjective, and that reporters telling us that a Presidents agenda is 'liberal' or 'conservative' doesn't actually tell us jack squat.
It comes down to economics. Not too long ago I heard a old news hound on the radio, I forget the reporter but I believe it was a Press Club Luncheon which suggests someone of some experience, basically saying 'Real journalism isn't economically feasible anymore, its expensive and the returns just don't make it worth it.' Its not hard to see the truth in this, most of the real in-depth journalism I see being done these days ends up not in newspapers, but in books or news magazines. The medium that birthed much of journalism in this country is dying, because it can't compete with 24 hour news channels brimming with talking heads paid not to inform but to simply ejaculate whatever drivel will sell.
We already have Cheney confessing to war crimes on national television, theres not even a question of guilt.
Yeah, I'd hope the statute of limitations on "crimes against humanity" was more than a couple of years.
As I understand it, television journalism only became an economic animal recently. The networks operated their news shows at a loss as a public service (or if you're more cynical, for the good PR you get for providing a service). I've only ever heard of one person who made their fortune solely off of selling the news, Murdoch, and I think even he would agree that a lot of his profit was derived from tabloids. My point is, I don't think news has to be highly profitable to survive, because it wasn't in the past.
As I understand it, profits started to rise sharply somewhere in the early 80's. Likely coinciding the the rise of cable news.
There was a prosecutor on Olbermann a while back who actually advised against this. Idea was once you name a special prosecutor everyone shuts the fuck up. Cheney wouldn't be talking to the Sunday circuit about how awesome waterboarding is; he would be quietly talking to his lawyers. Much of the information related to the case goes private and you quickly lose the public will to push the case forward.
Dude! Any President could walk outside the White House and strangle a random tourist to death with a hundred witnesses recording the event with cameras. That President would never spend a day in jail - that's a perk of being the leader of the free world.
What about The Hague?
Foreign socialists impinging on our national sovereignty.
Well apparently its not a couple of months since no one is even willing to investigate now. In a year it'll be election season again and it won't be appropriate because it'll be simply part of the campaign process. After that it will be the run up to the Presidential election and that will be even more true. All the while, we will be still recovering from this same economic crisis which will not be going away in the next year and not completely for several. After that there will be another crisis the WH has to deal with because that's what they do. If you put it off until the government doesn't have a lot on its plate then it will never happen.
I'm a little unclear at what point a prosecution of a President who committed war crimes could occur? In the aftermath of prosperity associated with those war crimes? Honestly if a President severely violated the law and/or committed war crimes, and it led to peace and prosperity he isn't getting prosecuted. The will of the people wouldn't allow it. If a President severely violated the law and it led to major problems now we aren't allowed to prosecute? When exactly does that leave for prosecutions?
The rule of law overrules political expediency. Political infighting is the only reason the two would have anything to with each other, its not like prosecutors would otherwise be crafting economic policy. By saying we should put this off, one is basically saying Justice should be cast aside for political advantage.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Republicans are generally not a fan of Europe, at least from my experience. This includes the Hague.
The US passed a law specificly allowing them to raid the Scheveningen prison in case any US citizen ends up being tried there.
The Dutch government isn't very amused with this law.
I think the problem the republicans have is that they can't tell bias from actual positive press. If the president is doing the best job he could possibly be doing under the circumstances (which President Obama is) then not bashing him isn't bias, its reporting the facts! Just like when Bush was an awful president and did everything in his power to destroy this nation, bashing him wasn't evidence of bias, it was reporting the facts. Perhaps I exaggerate a little here, but that's what the results were.
Fox news said bush was awesome and the savior of a nation cruelly ravaged by the Evil President Clinton, and that President Obama is a despicable communist socialist nazi despot who will destroy us all. They are biased if you want bias. The other news networks have been perhaps a bit over positive, but even CNN devotes an hour every day to 'Lou Dobbs rants on and on about how Obama is the doom of this nation'
And is liberal even a bad word? I would self identify as a liberal on most issues, and so would most people I know. Heck even a lot of Republicans would say they were liberal on many issues.